The Hierarchy of Consumer Participation: Knowledge and Proficiency in
Telecommunications Decision Making

Consumer research reveals a differential receptiveness on the part
of consumers to the understanding and use of consumer information and
education. Receptiveness to consumer education may vary according to (1) cognition, (2) social background characteristics, (3) occupational
grouping, (4) participation in community affairs, (5) level of
perception of consumer problems, (6) propensity to complain, and (7)
information seeking methods (Bourgeois and Barnes 1976; Wackman and Ward
1976; Wilkie 1976; Hempel and McEwen 1976; Bloom 1976; Thorelli and
Engledow 1980; Alder and Pittle 1984; Hyman 1986; Maynes 1988). Similar
patterns have been identified for complaint behavior and participation
(Hill 1982; Warland, Herrmann and Moore 1984; Hyman 1986, 1987; Miewald
and Comer 1986; Kroll and Stampfl 1986; Price, Feick, and Higie 1987;
Andreasen 1988).

Participation in American society also is not evenly distributed
throughout the population. Those who participate in social, economic,
and political affairs tend to reflect higher levels of income,
education, and age (Verba and Nie 1972). Different patterns of
participation have also been identified. Some citizens choose to remain
outside, or on the periphery, of decision making. Others become
intensely involved. A "hierarchy of political participation"
has been identified (Milbrath 1965; Milbrath and Goel 1982). (1)

Previous research has tended to be discipline-based and to address
specific aspects of either consumer behavior or political participation.
This article takes a step toward synthesis by using the logic of the
political participation model, and it examines several aspects of
consumer decision making and consumer education in a single study. Four
different sets of variables--knowledge about a decision area,
independence of decision making, use of information, and propensity to
influence others--are used to establish a "hierarchy of
participation in consumer decision making," and the relationship to
social background characteristics and the propensity to be aware of and
take action on related consumer problems are examined. Data from an
empirical study of mandated consumer decision making in the wake of the
deregulation of telecommunications are used as the basis for a model
that posits the existence of conceptually and empirically distinct
subgroups based on a combination of variables related to proficiency in
consumer decision making.

CONTEXT AND METHODS

Attendant to the deregulation of the telecommunications system in
the United States, all consumers were required to make decisions in
several areas in the year prior to this study. There was extensive
coverage in the media and by consumer groups, regulators, and the
telecommunications industry. Informational mailings and decision
requests from the utility company went to each household. Thus, it is
assumed that consumers had similar opportunities to know about the
decision areas (although all consumers would not be expected to avail
themselves equally of the opportunities). To the extent possible in a
field situation, the time element, information availability, and
opportunity to know are held constant. The situation provides a unique
opportunity to examine consumer behavior in a quasi-experimental
situation where one can make the assumption that everyone had an
equivalent opportunity to know and to act, and everyone made a decision
in a similar time frame.

Data for the analysis are from a 1985 representative statewide
sample of residential telephone customers in Pennsylvania, the state
with the fourth largest urban and the largest rural population. A
telephone "penetration rate" of 97 percent in Pennsylvania
means that for present purposes the full range of consumers had an
opportunity to be included in the sample. The sample was selected by
random digit dialing procedures using the operating ranges of numbers
for each local exchange. This ensures that nonlisted numbers were
included. Nonresidential consumers were screened out and are not
considered part of the sample frame. Interviewers asked for the
"person who makes decisions in your household about telephone
decisions." Arrangements for call-backs were made if that person
was not home. The response rate is 60 percent. A completed sample of
500 is the basis for the analysis.

The dependent variables consist of data on the respondents'
recall of information and decisions related to four areas in which
decisions were required: (1) knowledge of the new structure of the
telecommunications industry as indicated by understanding the separation
of long distance and local service systems, (2) customer premise
equipment--the ownership of the phone itself, (3) local calling
options--the payment or service plans offered by the local company, and
(4) inside wire maintenance--the ownership of telephone wires within the
respondent's home. All respondents made decisions in these four
areas in the period preceding the study or someone else chose for them.
(2)

A three-tiered hierarchy is used to assess the level of knowledge
of each respondent. The research protocol calls first for respondents
to be asked to explain their options in each decision area without
prompting. Those who give incorrect answers are then read their
options. The remainder are incorrect or "don't know"
responses. The result is a three-level hierarchy of knowledge: recall,
the ability to explain the options with no or little prompting (as with
an essay exam); recognition, the ability to make a selection from a list
(as with a multiple choice exam); and ignorance, incorrect responses on
both of the above levels, as well as "don't know"
responses (taking a default after being requested repeatedly to make an
active decision is, in fact, a decision--or a "nondecision").
Consumers are then asked about the independence of their decisions,
sources of information used, and their involvement in influencing
others. Composite measures, scores or scales, are constructed by
combining responses from several related items. These procedures
provide the basis for examining the interaction of these dimensions of
decison making.

FINDINGS AND RATIONALE FOR A DECISION-BASED HIERARCHY

OF PARTICIPATION IN DECISION MAKING

This section of the study tests the theory that more proficient consumer decision makers are more independent in decision making, they
are more informed and educated, they have the appropriate knowledge and
experience for consumer decision making, and they exhibit a higher
propensity to affect the decisions of other consumers and those in
positions of corporate and/or political authority. If these variables
are interrelated and cumulative, there is a basis for inferring that a
hierarchy exists.

Levels of Knowledge and Independence in Decision Making

The telephone ownership decision was chosen as a basis for
exploring this issue for several reasons. All consumers were asked to
make a choice in the period immediately before the study. It is a high
visibility decision in that consumers are confronted daily in magazines,
shopping centers, catalogs, and other media sources with offers of
telephones to be purchased. Both industry and consumer groups had
extensive information and education programs about this issue. Every
consumer received information from his telephone company prior to making
a decision. The Pennsylvania PUC and the Consumer Federation of America in Washington, D.C. both had toll-free information lines for consumers.
Thus, every residential telecommunications consumer had the opportunity
to know and to learn about this issue. Given the offer and the
opportunity, those who are less informed are expected to have a lower
propensity to perceive and use consumer information materials. The
issue of whether they are less proficient in their consumer decision
making is examined.

Knowledge of Premise Equipment and Independence of Decision

First, a majority of consumers (73 percent) are knowledgeable about
their customer premise equipment. About one in three, however, needs to
be prompted to recognize this option (20 percent) or is ignorant of this
choice (7 percent). These data form the basis for examining
independence and dependence in decision making.

Second, following questions about the level of knowledge for the
telephone ownership decision, consumers identified the degree of
independence of their decisions. Table 1 shows that about two out of
three consumers report making their decisions entirely or mostly by
themselves. About one in three reports receiving considerable help in
making the decision.

The Information-Getting Propensity

Third, consumers indicated whether they "got information or
advice regarding buying or leasing telephones" from any combination
among six possible sources (and an "other" catchall). About
half of the consumers (51 percent) report using telephone company
information in their decision making. About a third use family or
friends (39 percent), and a similar proportion use the print media (33
percent). About one-fourth use broadcast media (25 percent). Fewer
than one percent report using information from government sources or
community groups. Clearly, not all consumers use the same sources, and
some consumers use more than one.

Zero to six different types of information sources could be named
by each respondent. Totaling the types of sources of information used
by each respondent, the "information-getting score" resulting
signifies the propensity to use different sources of information in
decision making. Table 2, showing the frequencies for the raw scores,
indicates the most consumers report using one or two types, and few
consumers report using four to six. This is as the theory suggests and
provides a basis for the third part of the theory--use of information
according to the independence of decision making.

Table 3 shows the relationship between the independence of the
phone ownership decision and the information-getting score: the total
number of sources of information the respondent reported using to make
the decision. There is a clear pattern whereby those reporting greater
independence in decision-making are also informed by more sources.
Independence in consumer decision making is thus associated with
utilizing more sources of consumer information. Conversely, those who
allow someone else to decide for them use fewer sources of information,
and they appear to be truly unknowledgable and dependent. The third
part of the theory is supported.

Information Giving: The Propensity to Influence Others

The fourth and final hypothesis is that those who are more
confident in their own decision making are resources for others, and
some try to influence community or corporate policies. All respondents
reported whether they told others about the phone ownership options,
helped others make their decisions, and/or tried to influence
policymakers about the issue. On the premise equipment decision, the
majority (57 percent) do not give advice to others, complain to
officials in the business involved, or express their opinions to
political or community leaders. About one in three (36 percent) gives
information and advice to acquaintances. About five percent complain to
officials in the telephone company. Only a small percentage (less than
two percent) contact community leaders, newspapers, magazines, or
government leaders about the issue. Thus, most consumers are not
involved in the decisions of others, nor are they active in complaining
or trying to influence decision makers, but those involved in
information giving or influencing exhibit a definite pattern. This
being the case, there is a basis for examining whether those who take
action to aid or influence others are more confident and proficient
consumers.

Table 4 presents an analysis of the total of all advice and
influencing responses. The resulting score is a measure of
"propensity to influence others." As found above with
propensity to seek information, advice-giving and influencing others are
significantly related to higher levels of independence in personal
decision making. Those who report higher levels of independence in
decision making also report influencing others to a greater degree.
(Note that the "influencing scores" are based on the number of
different types of attempts to influence others, not the actual number
of attempts at influence. An individual may have given advice to
several others, which would be reported here as having been involved in
one type of influencing.) Conversely, those who are more dependent on
others for their decisions usually do not aid or influence others. This
pattern is consistent with the previous pattern and supports the
creation of a scale combining independence of decision making, use of
information sources, and propensity to influence others.

The Consumer Decision-Making Scale (CDS)

To examine all four aspects of the theory together, a Consumer
Decision-Making Scale (CDS) is constructed based on the level of
knowledge, weighted first by the independence of decision, second by the
propensity to use information (the information-getting score), and third
by the propensity to influence the decisions of others (the influencing
score). Table 5 shows the relationship between independence of decision
making and a combined information-getting and influencing score.

The rationale for this relationship is based on the assumption that
the variables of knowledge, information, and behavior will be
interrelated. First, consumers who are more knowledgeable about a topic
may be more or less independent in their decision making. This study
finds the former to be the case. Second, greater knowledge will be
related to a higher propensity to seek information about the topic.
Finally, higher levels of information seeking will be related to giving
information and advice to others. Table 5 shows that the relationships
observed above with separate variables also hold when the scores are
interrelated. (3)

Previous studies found differences among consumers on each of these
different variables. This study shows that there is a clear
statistically significant pattern across all variables and that high
scores on one are related to high scores on the others. Consumers who
exhibit greater knowledge and independence in their own decision making
have higher than average tendencies both to get information from a
variety of sources and to influence others. These data provide support
for the construction of a Consumer Decision-Making Scale (CDS) based on
combining the scores for knowledge level, independence of decision,
information getting, and influencing. (4) The CDS is used below to
examine the relationship between proficiency in consumer decision making
and other relevant variables. For purposes of analysis, four levels of
proficiency are established. (5) Figure 1 shows the distribution of
final CDS scores and the four groupings used for analysis. This is not
a bell-shaped "normal" distribution but one that is bi- or
tri-modal. Low scores on the CDS are associated with low consumer
proficiency and vice versa.

Social Background and Consumer Proficiency

The social background of consumers in each of the levels of the
consumer decision scale (CDS) is informative regarding the targets and
need for action and the approaches required for successful
implementation. In particular, data on age, education, and household
income provide insights into the dynamics of consumer decision making.
(6)

Age

Table 6 shows that proficiency in decision making is related to the
age of the consumer. Significantly higher proportions of older
consumers rank low on the decision-making scale. While there is a
progression across the age groupings, the major differences emerge with
those 45 and older. Thus, younger consumers tend to be more proficient
in their decision making. They exhibit more independence in making
choices, and they report using more types of information sources and
attempting to help or influence the decisions of others more.

Education

The education of consumers also shows a statistically significant
relationship with proficiency in decision making (Table 7). Consumers
with more than a high school education score higher on the CDS than do
those with a high school education or less. Twice as many of the
groupings with high school education or less score low on the scale, and
those with more than a high school education are more than twice as
likely to score in the higher levels of proficiency in decision making.

Income

The total household income of respondents is not significantly
related to their levels on the CDS, although a pattern is suggested.
Table 8 Part A shows the percentages scoring low, moderate, or high on
the consumer decision scale for four major income groupings. Very few
consumers with incomes less than $10,000 score high on the scale, and
the converse is true for those with incomes $20,000 and above; these
differences fall short of significance at the 0.05 level.

Analysis of position on the CDS by poverty status approaches
significance but remains below the generally accepted level. Poverty
level is measured by classifying consumers according to whether they are
below 150 percent of the Federal poverty level for the state. It
adjusts household income for family size. Table 8 Part B shows that
differences exist, but they are not significant at the 0.05 level of
significance. (Education is a confounding variable because of its
relationship to income, thus further supporting the idea that income
alone is not significant.)

THE CONSUMER DECISION SCALE AND ASSOCIATED DECISIONS

If a relationship exists between the consumer decision scale (CDS)
and other telecommunications decisions, one can begin to make inferences
to more general areas and provide support for a theoretical consumer
decision-making hierarchy. The CDS is based on a single decision area;
it may represent a unique phenomenon. If, however, higher scores on the
hierarchy are associated with higher levels of consumer knowledge in
other areas, there is an empirical basis for inferring that a general
pattern exists. This section examines this relationship.

Table 9 shows the levels of consumer knowledge on three
telecommunications decisions and knowledge of the body responsible for
regulating utilities in Pennsylvania (this last variable is introduced
to test the relationship of the CDS to an even more general area).
Based on the tripartite distinction on level of knowledge--recall,
recognition, ignorance--the table shows different levels of knowledge
among consumers for different decision areas.

The table lists the decisions with the higher aggregate levels of
recall first, followed by lower levels. The consuming public is most
informed about the phone ownership decision, with three out of four
respondents being able to explain their options without prompting.
There are lower levels of recall for the inside wire maintenance choice
and understanding of the regulatory system. The level of recall is
lowest for local phone service options, with fewer than one out of five
consumers being able to name two or more of the three options that were
available to them (and from which they had made a choice, including
defaults, in the year preceding the study).

Table 10 shows the relationship between consumers' levels on
the CDS and their knowledge levels on the two other telecommunications
decisions. There is a significant relationship between the CDS and
knowledge in both areas. Thus, a pattern across decisions is inferred.

The general nature of the pattern gains additional support through
examination of the relationship of a combined "telecommunications
decision index" to the CDS. (7) Table 11 shows that a
statistically significant relationship exists between a
telecommunications decision index and the consumer decision scale (CDS).
Consumers who score low on the CDS tend to have lower levels of
telecommunications knowledge across all decisions and vice versa.

Further support for the generalizability of the CDS is provided in
Table 12, which depicts the relationship between the consumer decision
scale and awareness of a more general actor in the telecommunications
regulatory system--knowledge of the utility regulatory body. Again,
those consumers with higher decision scale scores also have higher
levels of knowledge about the regulatory system. A logical inference is
that people who score higher on the CDS have a comparative advantage
both in the marketplace and in the regulatory arena. They are expected
to be more proficient in making wise choices and exercising their
consumer rights and responsibilities.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FIELD: A HIERARCHY

OF PARTICIPATION IN CONSUMER DECISION MAKING

Consumers are not equally independent in their decision making;
they are not equally well informed; they do not use the same sources of
information, nor do they equally attempt to influence others. Most
importantly, level of knowledge, decision independence, propensity to
use information sources, and propensity to influence others are
significantly interrelated. The findings of this study, in conjunction
with previous studies, provide a basis for a "hierarchy of consumer
participation" with levels comparable to the hierarchy of political
participation developed by Milbrath (1965, 1982). Four ideal types of
consumers are identified: consumer influentials, active consumers,
dependent consumers, and nondecision makers. (8)

Figure 2 is a graphic depiction of the hierarchy of consumer
participation. The different levels represent points on a continuum.
Consumer proficiency increases as one moves up the hierarchy.
Participation is considered cumulative, in that consumers who engage in
the topmost behaviors are likely to have done or considered those in
lower levels. Conversely, those who engage in the lower-level behaviors
would be expected to confine their activities to those ranking low on
the hierarchy.

The hierarchy includes most common consumer activities related to
making and influencing decisions. The hierarchy does not include
consumer complaining, which has been shown to reflect a similar
hierarchical pattern (Warland, Herrmann, and Moore 1984). As is also
the case with Milbrath's hierarchy, behaviors higher in the
hierarchy tend to require greater expenditures of energy and commitment.
Fewer people are expected to be involved in the higher levels than those
lower on the hierarchy. Finally, there also seems to be a logical
progression from doing little or nothing to affect one's situation,
to being involved with personal consequences, and to attempt to
influence the way things are done.

Consumer influentials are both active and proactive--they make
their own decisions using a variety of sources of information, and they
are also involved in influencing the decisions of others. At lower
levels, influentials give information and advice to family, friends, and
acquaintances. At higher levels, they seek to influence seller
practices, community action, and/or public policy. Consumer
influentials exhibit the characteristics of leaders, whether this
leadership is in relation to a close circle of significant others or to
broader corporate and public policy circles. Consumer influentials are
open to, and most likely seek, information about options, and they are
sought out by others for information and advice. These individuals are
not only targets for consumer information and education, but also they
provide a reservoir of talent, motivation, and leadership for informing
others and influencing policies and programs.

Active consumers are informed consumers to varying degrees--they
make their own decisions based on information from one or more sources.
At lower levels on the hierarchy, these consumers may get help from
others or decide conjointly with others. At higher levels, their
decisions will be generally independent of others, based on information
from one or more sources. Active consumers tend to make their own
decisions, and they make them based on various degrees of knowledge of
options open to them. They tend to be reasonably knowledgeable about
their options, and their concerns are more for their own decisions than
for others.

Dependent consumers let others decide for them--they uncritically
do what significant others do or tell them to do. Their decisions tend
to be made without direct personal consideration of information or
evaluation of options. To the extent that the decision leaders to whom
they defer understand their situation and have their interests foremost
(as with a parent, close friend, or community helper), the final
outcomes will most likely be positive. To the extent that the decision
leaders have their own (or their business') interest foremost, as
with sellers or advertisers, or at least are unconcerned about the
interest of the dependent consumer, the final outcomes will be negative
or, at best, benign.

Nondecision makers are proxy decision makers--they do not take an
active part in their decisions and, typically by default, someone else
decides for them. At the "lowest" level, they are uninformed
about the decision area, apparently do not care, and when offered a
choice, take no action. By default, they frequently give the seller a
proxy to decide for them, or they go without the product or service if
no default exists. These people are, perhaps, the most problematic from
both personal and social perspectives. Their health and safety may be
threatened by the consequences of nondecisions. Some are capable
decision makers who choose not to decide. Many are not. They may be
unable to afford the goods or services provided by default. Such
nondecision makers may command resources that they cannot use or that
will be used indiscriminately. When such situations occur, individual
harm leads to pain and suffering and increased requirements for other
resources such as hospital, public health, police, fire, income
assistance, and other protective services. Companies may need to expend significantly higher resources in collections, complaint handling,
monitoring, restitution, and protective services. The public finds
itself in the dilemma of either allowing social and personal costs to
accrue or covering the cost of protecting these people from negative
consequences of their inaction.

Program and Policy Implications of the Hierarchy

The hierarchy of ideal types of consumers provides a framework for
synthesis of research findings and a guide to further inquiry and
action. The levels of consumer participation, based on proficiency and
initiative in decision making, are expected to be highly salient in
defining targets for consumer action--whether it be research, education,
protection, or policy. Nondecision makers require either consumer
protection by official bodies or fundamental, in-depth education about
how and why they need to make wise decisions, as well as information
about options for specific decisions. In general, these consumers need
protection if they are to be spared the vicissitudes of the marketplace.
Dependent consumers must have knowledgeable, interested, and trusted
consumer influentials who are readily available when decisions are to be
made. They, too, might benefit from fundamental, in-depth, consumer
education. Otherwise, either private corporate or regulatory practices
must ensure that the defaults and dominant choices available will have
either positive or benign outcomes. Active consumers are the primary
target for consumer information and education. Their varying degrees of
openness to information, different levels of proficiency, and use of
different distribution media must all be considered in designing and
implementing programs and policies. Consumer influentials generally
seek out information on their own and are open to a variety of
sophisticated approaches. They are potential targets for detailed
information as they will become the sources used by others in making
decisions. In addition, these consumer leader types provide a reservoir
of interest and talent for developing and revising policies and
programs. They may become involved in changing policies or directions
of agencies, corporations, or organizations.

Some Key Research Issues

Important unanswered questions deal with the generalizability of
the phenomena observed. Other research leads to questions related to
other consumer areas (Maynes 1988), adoption of new ideas (Rogers and
Shoemaker 1971), and sociopolitical participation (Verba and Nie 1972;
Milbrath 1982). First, the study calls for research into whether
consumers, especially the dependent consumers and nondecision makers,
behave similarly across other product and service decisions. If
nondecision makers are informationally disadvantaged across all product
categories, there are important implications in an "information
age" market-based system that assumes considerable sophistication on the part of consumers. Is this a general phenomenon, or is it unique
to telecommunications? Second, the extent to which consumer actives and
influentials are generalists or specialists remains to be examined. Are
they also higher-level participants in other sectors? Third, the
relationship between consumer decision making and other areas of
consumer behavior such as problem perception and complaining behavior
needs to be explored. Finally, research on the relationship between the
patterns identified herein and general sociopolitical behavior requires
examination and documentation. These are crucial questions, for they
address patterns of choice and bias, and if research shows that the
pattern generalizes to other areas, issues of comparative advantage and
ultimately status and power are involved.

CONCLUSIONS

The preceding analyses identify a cumulative character to consumer
capabilities and levels of participation in decision making. Social
background, achievement in education, consumer knowledge and competence,
and decisions in the marketplace are highly interrelated. The
comparative advantage enjoyed by some is counterbalanced by the relative
disadvantage of others. The existence of an "underclass" may
be more pervasive and deeply rooted than otherwise presumed.

A persistent and pervasive relationship exists between micro-level
consumer decision making in specific areas, behavior in seeking and
using information, and influencing corporate and public policy and
practice. This study suggests that patterns of participation, knowledge
seeking, and decision making are deeply rooted in the sociopolitical
personalities of consumers. This phenomenon, in turn, is expected to
create differential patterns of bias in the American political and
economic culture.

Empirical data support the creation of a "hierarchy of
consumer participation" in one area, with a high probability that
it represents a more general phenomenon. Significant relationships are
demonstrated between consumer decision making, propensity to use
information for decisions, propensity to influence others, and social
background characteristics. Thus a synthesis of knowledge from several
fields including political science, sociology, consumer economics, and
education, as well as among concepts of participation, political
culture, socialization, information seeking, and decision making, is
approached. The results should be useful methodologically,
theoretically, and practically for research, program design, and public
policy analysis.

One reviewer points out the parallels of this research to studies
of the diffusion of innovations. The literature on the use of
communications in decision making during the adoption of innovations
also finds hierarchically patterned variations. For example, Rogers and
Shoemaker (1971) find that early adopters of innovations have greater
knowledge, seek information more, have more change agent, and have more
mass media contact than late adopters and laggards. Since this
literature did not underlie the present study, it is not discussed
herein. However, the readers, especially those considering followup
research, are referred to this body of knowledge.

(2) Since this is a statewide study, there was no control for the
company variable. About three-fourths of Pennsylvania consumers are
customers of one company, with the remainder divided among several
smaller companies. Separate analysis of the primary versus smaller
companies shows no statistically significant (chi-square at the 0.05
level or better) differences in the sample for age, education, and
income. Some differences are found on knowledge questions.

Observed differences on satisfaction, sources of information,
adequacy of information, and believability are not statistically
significant at the 0.05 level. Appropriate adjustments are made on
knowledge questions to account for different company policies on the
local options and wire maintenance variables.

(3) These data were examined using several methods of scale
construction. Each revealed similar relationships to those described
herein. Analysis of the relationship of information-getting scores to
influencing scores shows that those with higher getting scores tend to
have higher influencing scores--the pattern is pervasive. The final
scores reported are thus based on the product of the total
information-getting score and the total influencing score for each
respondent. This approach ensures that influencing is not equated to
getting, as with a simple sum.

(4) The CDS scale is the product of: level of knowledge (K)
weighted by (1) the level of decision independence (6 = all by self . .
. to 1 = default) and (2) the information-getting score (1 + the sum of
the information sources used in the decision) multiplied by (3) the
influencing score (1 + the sum of the influencing responses). CDS =
{[(K * 1) * 2] * (3)}.

(5) The pattern presented in Table 5 is maintained, as well as the
need for relatively equivalent proportions for statistical analysis.
The final scores range from 1 to 144. Examination of the frequencies
for raw scores in relation to the pattern presented in Table 5 suggests
that four categories are adequate. There are breaks (no observations)
between 11-12, 21-24, and 41-45. The groupings used herein are as
follows: Low = 1-10 CDS score (n = 166); Moderate 1 = 11-20 CDS score (N
= 159); Moderate 2 = 21-40 CDS score (N = 166); High = 41-144 CDS score
(N = 46).

(6) These findings reflect the patterns identified by Thorelli and
Engledow (1980).

(7) The telecommunications decision index reflects a combined score
for each respondent of the levels of knowledge for four areas: local
options, wire maintenance, premise equipment, and ability to identify
correctly both local and long distance companies. Levels are coded as:
recall = 3, recognition = 2, and ignorance = 1.

(8) Ideal types are conceptualizations based on observations of
reality, in this case the empirical analysis, in order to facilitate
comparisons. They are constructed by logically abstracting
characteristics of the phenomenon under consideration. The main levels
of the hierarchy are inferred and considered conceptually parallel to
Milbrath's (1965) levels of political involvement (apathetics,
spectator activities, transitional activities, and gladiatorial activities).

REFERENCES

Alder, Robert S. and R. David Pittle (1984), "Cajolery or
Command: Are Education Campaigns an Adequate Substitute for
Regulation?" Yale Journal on Regulation, 1:159-193.

Andreasen, Alan R. (1988), "Consumer Complaints and Redress:
What We Know and What We Don't Know," in The Frontier of
Research in the Consumer Interest, E. Scott Maynes (ed.), Columbia, MO:
American Council on Consumer Interests:675-722.